Seil Chat

.
I'm looking forward to the Commonwealth Games.

It's an event that will be mostly competed in by nations who used to be ruled from London but decided they’d rather go their own way. They have prospered as independent nations since 'seperation', each former bit of 'empire' managing to bring a team of athletes here with no special assistance from the UK government. And not a single one of these former colonies has ever pleaded to be allowed back under the wing of the UK.

Are you saying Scotland couldn't do the same?

You're comparing apples with pears.

The Commonwealth countries you refer to were colonies of The United Kingdom. Scotland is clearly not a colony of the United Kingdom. We are a constituent part of the UK so your argument falls at the first hurdle I'm afraid.

As the UK our athletes enjoy tremendous financial support and the use of first class training facilities provided by the family of the UK for use by the family members. I can so no reason to suddenly throw that away and neither do any of our athletes. It will cost a separate Scotland many millions to replicate the training facilities and support which our athletes currently enjoy as citizens of the UK.

Isn't it interesting that Salmond is allowing only ONE of our thirteen olympic medallists, of whom we are so proud, a vote in his referendum on the future of their country.

The fact that Scots athletes have to go down to England to find decent facilities underlines exactly why Scotland needs the powers to stop the gross inequalities which characterise English governance within both the UK and the former Empire. With independence, we can trade weapons of mass destruction, the illegal and useless war machine plus the worship of bankers and the rich minority for investment in a fairer infrastructure with much better facilities for all Scots, including athletes. Quoting such as Hoy is ludicrous, Longshanks - he's basically just a businessman selling bikes and trying not to offend his main customers. Welcome back, by the way. Even if you are a bit of a lackey!

What is all this big hoo-ha about athletes and nationality ? and why should it be brought into the political arena?
If I am a tiddly winks champion and I enter into competition with another player, I am competing against him (or it might be her) and not against the country that they have either been born in or adopted by to gain some country prestige.
If perchance, I should be a dab hand at tiddly winks, and decide to put my prowess to the test by competing against others of the same persuasion, I am not doing it to glorify my country, but purely to test my abilities against others, regardless of nationality, creed, or colour. To bring any of these other things into the equation, only debases the whole concept of competition down to a level where national pride is dependant on the relative intrinsic value of the medals achieved.

MonaLott wrote:The fact that Scots athletes have to go down to England to find decent facilities underlines exactly why Scotland needs the powers to stop the gross inequalities which characterise English governance within both the UK and the former Empire. With independence, we can trade weapons of mass destruction, the illegal and useless war machine plus the worship of bankers and the rich minority for investment in a fairer infrastructure with much better facilities for all Scots, including athletes. Quoting such as Hoy is ludicrous, Longshanks - he's basically just a businessman selling bikes and trying not to offend his main customers. Welcome back, by the way. Even if you are a bit of a lackey!

Thanks for the welcome.

Shame the true colours had to be shown though.......it seems that to supporters of separation (as exampled here) it boils down to anti-Englishness, out of hand dismissal of anyone who expresses support for keeping the UK family together (Sir Chris Hoy), and throwing vaguely insulting words at me for supporting our country....lackey of whom ?

To me, and I hope most people who live in the Twenty First Century, life should be about living together.

If, to separatists like you, it is ludicrous to quote our greatest ever olympian, is it also ludicrous to quote our greatest ever rugby union player?

.
Countries competing in the Commonwealth Games:

Africa
Botswana, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia

Americas
Belize, Bermuda, Canada, Falkland Islands, Guyana, St. Helena

Asia
Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, India, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka

Caribbean
Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & The Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos Islands

Europe
Cyprus, England, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Malta, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales

Oceania
Australia, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Norfolk Island, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu


Countries competing in the commonwealth games that are still under Westminster rule:
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland,

-------------------------------------------------

The other Commonwealth countries opted for self-determination years ago. Isn't it about time Scotland did the same?

Independence is the NORMAL condition for a country.

Apologies if I have to repeat myself but you are not comparing like for like.

The vast majority of the countries in your list were were colonies. We are not a colony.

Maybe it would help if you googled a defintion of colony. Scotland most certainly does not fit any accepted definition.

I am totally non-plussed as to why you say that we are under "under Westminster rule".

Westminster just happens to be the location of our Parliament to which we send our MPs to represent us. Westminster are not our rulers......

If our Parliament relocated to Gretna would you say we are under Gretna rule ?

I'm pleased you weren't tempted to write we are "under English rule."

Longshanks, it was you whose first entry raised the English schism issue. All I'm saying is that the fact that Scots must go down there to find decent facilities just exemplifies in a trivial way (which you raised) the unfair distribution of wealth within the UK. If Scotland and England were 'living together' in a fair and just manner, Scotland would not be so impoverished in this and more significant social and economic ways to the benefit of southern England; and England would respect Scotland's right to manage (or mismanage!) its own affairs in the normal democratic manner. Instead of which Scotland is currently governed by a clueless unelected toff and bankrupt England remains convinced it is still a world military superpower, squandering lives and trillions of money it doesn't have on dreadful military missions while folk like you talk misty-eyedly about happy families and how having oil reserves is a huge problem for Scotland. And trivia like how fellow-lackeys like Hoy and Hastings live in England and make comments that suit their personal business careers. This referendum is about basics - about (normal) self-determination, about improving the fair distribution of wealth, about democracy, about living peacefully within our means, about being a friendly country within the United Kingdom and within the family of nations. Bring it on!

MonaLott wrote:Longshanks, it was you whose first entry raised the English schism issue.

Actually I didn't and wouldn't...it was you who raised it in the fourth post on this thread.

MonaLott wrote: All I'm saying is that the fact that Scots must go down there to find decent facilities just exemplifies in a trivial way (which you raised) the unfair distribution of wealth within the UK.

That fact is that Scots are just going to a part of their country where facilities are centrally and accessibly located, in the same way as someone from Kent will travel to Manchester for the best cycling training. Nothing to do with unfairness.

MonaLott wrote: England would respect Scotland's right to manage (or mismanage!) its own affairs in the normal democratic manner. Instead of which Scotland is currently governed by a clueless unelected toff and bankrupt England remains convinced it is still a world military superpower, squandering lives and trillions of money it doesn't have on dreadful military missions

You are on that anti-English tack again. The UK is not England. You seem confused on this.

MonaLott wrote: England would respect Scotland's right to manage (or mismanage!) its own affairs in the normal democratic manner.

England again ! Please do show me how England does not respect.....etc

MonaLott wrote: fellow-lackeys like Hoy and Hastings live in England and make comments that suit their personal business careers.

So me, Sir Chris Hoy, and Gavin Hastings are lackeys are we ?
1. Lackeys of whom ?
2. How does making comments supporting our continuing membership of the UK suit our personal business interests ?
3. Gavin Hastings lives in Edinburgh; you can see Murrayfield from his sitting room.

MonaLott wrote:This referendum .........about being a friendly country within the United Kingdom.

Its about leaving the United Kingdom actually. We will become a foreign country to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We may still have the union of the crowns (for a short time I would anticipate) but, politically, economically etc we would not be a member of the UK.


Finally you used the words "English" and "England" six times in your short post. Why ? Its about leaving the UK isn't it ?

There are some around who are convinced that this whole separation thing is a manifestation of the childish, but now increasingly sinister, anti-English mindset of a minority of my fellow countrymen....................I really sincerely hope they are wrong.

The whole quest for independence has become a farce.

Yes voters want to keep the Queen as head of state
Yes voters want to keep the pound which is controlled by 'Westminster'
Yes voters want to keep the best of British institutions, protection from NATO, the UK's opt outs from the EU, etc, etc.
Ironically Yes voters want to vote for many of the things that the Union (through Westminster if you like) has always given them

Or if it has a choice to be a separate member of the EU, it wants to use the Euro and be totally beholden to Brussels.

Which of these is the 'independence' Yes voters desire?

Admit it, it's a farce.

Wise up, Longshanks, (1) You used the word 'England' 12 times in your first post. (2) Pity you don't know the meaning of 'Kingdom'.

PentlandPirate II wrote:The whole quest for independence has become a farce.

Yes voters want to keep the Queen as head of state
Yes voters want to keep the pound controlled by 'Westminster'
Yes voters want to keep the best of British institutions, protection from NATO, the UK's opt outs from the EU, etc, etc.
Ironically Yes voters want to vote for many of the things that the Union (through Westminster if you like) has always given them

Or if it has a choice to be a separate member of the EU, it wants to use the Euro and be totally beholden to Brussels.

Which of these is the 'independence' Yes voters desire?

Admit it, it's a farce.

There is a three way split in Scottish opinion. Opinion polls repeatedly show a third in favour of the status quo, a third in favour of more powers for Scotland (so-called 'devo max' and one third favouring independence. A YouGov poll this week showed that apparently not much has changed over more than a year, with 30 per cent, support for independence, 32 percent in favour of more powers for Holyrood and a meagre 29% in favour of the status quo.

Devo max, of course, is not an option; it was ruled out by Westminster as a 'third option' on the ballot paper in spite of the SNP repeatedly saying they were open to the idea. Is it surprising then that the independence prospectus currently on offer closely resembles devo-max in many aspects? (Shared currency, monarchy, membership of institutions) ? An overnight transition to some alien Scottish socialist republic is not what most people want, but they do want more say in the way their country is governed.

It's not a farce, it is a sensible, gradualist way to proceed. Just as the devolution settlement in 1997 was a stepping stone to independence, so the proposed 'independence lite' as some have called it is a stepping stone to whatever the citizens of Scotland want, right up to a fully fledged socialist republic with its own currency at some future date if that is the will of the people.

The argument that what is being offered is 'not proper independence' is, frankly, illiterate. How much of Scotland's Future have you read? It is a serious manifesto for a serious country, and not a farce at all. Once you have read it and stopped regurgitating tabloid headlines, then perhaps we can have a serious discussion. However, if all you can do is mock and essentially call a third of the country (those already declared for YES) no more than dupes then I am afraid an adult discussion is not possible.

Of course "Devo Max" (ie more Holyrood powers without independence) is only achievable by way of a No vote.

That's why I've dropped a wedge on a No vote with Paddy Power (despite the awful odds of 1 to 7)

longshanks wrote:Scotland is clearly not a colony of the United Kingdom

In 1707 when the Speaker of the English Parliament was informed that the Scottish Parliament had voted in favour of the Treaty of Union he reportedly said -

"We have catch'd Scotland and we will not let her go."

It boils down to one thing really - do you consider Scotland to be a country, or do you just regard her as a region of Britain? The normal condition for a country is independence.

longshanks wrote:Of course "Devo Max" (ie more Holyrood powers without independence) is only achievable by way of a No vote.

That bus has left.

Devo max will require the assent of the whole country.

None of the main political parties will go into the 2015 Westminster election promising more powers to the 'rebellious Scots'.

And even if they did, for it to have any credence all three parties would need to agree on a package sometime in the next six months and sell it to the Scottish electorate before polling day.

Not going to happen. A YES vote gives you devo-max and a wee bit more, a NO vote gives you nothing.

NickB wrote:

longshanks wrote:Of course "Devo Max" (ie more Holyrood powers without independence) is only achievable by way of a No vote.

That bus has left.

Devo max will require the assent of the whole country. No it won't. Were the devolution referenda nationwide ? Nope.

None of the main political parties will go into the 2015 Westminster election promising more powers to the 'rebellious Scots'. You know that do you ? How ? Source ?

And even if they did, for it to have any credence all three parties would need to agree on a package sometime in the next six months and sell it to the Scottish electorate before polling day. Why ? The Scottish electorate are not thick. We all know that if we want more powers without independence (ie DevoMax) we have to vote No and it is very clear that the shape of increased/extra powers will be made clear at the Spring Party Conferences

Not going to happen. A YES vote gives you devo-max and a wee bit more, a NO vote gives you nothing. [b]Actually a Yes vote sends us off on our own while a No vote keeps us in the most successful political and social union the world has ever seen.[/b]

.
Well, good luck with that.

Voters in England are fed up with the Scots.

They have swallowed the subsidy junkie lies of the tabloid media hook line and sinker and will be furious at any further 'appeasement'

I find it highly unlikely that the three main parties will be willing or able to agree a hefty devo-max package and square it with their party machines and electorates before plunging into a no-holds-barred election campaign where they will fight each other tooth and nail.

I'm bored now. I think your arguments to date on the two threads you have started are extremely weak - though I have to give you some credit for trying to put a positive spin on how great the Union is rather than just trotting out the usual scare stories.

However, your claim that we are in the most successful political and social union the world has ever seen begs the question, for whom?

Pity no-one else seems to want to debate with you. I'm going to be too busy for a while now to do more than take an occasional peek.

It boils down to one thing really - do you consider Scotland to be a country, or do you just regard her as a region of Britain?

Well I suspect most of us here have our country in our passports given as "United Kingdom". And I am sure a huge proportion of Scots in Scotland regard their country as United Kingdom or Great Britain. And for people like me with mixed blood and part of a life in Scotland and part in England declaring themselves as British makes much more sense. I would once have said I am Scots at heart but was born in Northern England. Now, coming with more life experience of the bigger picture I consider I am British, end of, and that Scotland is part of the UK. I see no need to think of that part which is Scotland as a separate and distinct country. The thought that a tiny proportion of the country of my birth (UK) hold the fate of the continuance of the country (UK) I was born into is alarming. Imagine if the rest of the UK voted to abandon Scotland, dump it, ....there would be uproar, probably with a significant proportion of today's Yes campaigners being amongst the loudest to complain.

Voters in England are fed up with the Scots

Yes, because some Scots aggravate some English and causing some to tar all Scots with the same brush (being part Scots I say this with some regret).

PentlandPirate II wrote:I am sure a huge proportion of Scots in Scotland regard their country as United Kingdom or Great Britain.

Sorry, but you are quite wrong.

Recently released data from the 2011 census shows that most people living in Scotland regard regard themselves as Scottish first and British second (if at all).

See here for more detail : BBC website